Internet DRAFT - draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds
draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds
Network Working Group F. Ellermann
Internet-Draft xyzzy
Obsoletes: 2606 D. Eastlake
(if approved) Eastlake Enterprises
Intended status: BCP August 18, 2008
Expires: February 19, 2009
Reserved Top Level DNS Names
draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2009.
Abstract
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level
domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in
documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain
names reserved for use as examples are documented. This memo
replaces RFC 2606 reserving 21 additional TLDs.
Editorial note
This note and Appendix B should be removed before publication. The
draft can be discussed on the IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org> mailing
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
list.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. ".example", ".tld" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. ".invalid" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. ".localhost" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. ".test" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Educational Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
1. Introduction
The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC1034],
[RFC1035], [RFC1123], [RFC1591], [RFC3696], and numerous additional
Requests for Comments. It defines a tree of names starting with
root, ".", immediately below which are top level domain names such as
".com" and ".us". Below top level domain names there are normally
additional levels of names.
IPv4 addresses used for tests and in examples are specified in
[I-D.iana-rfc3330bis], IPv6 addresses used in examples are described
in [RFC3849]; see also [RFC4085].
Fully Qualified Domain Names used in many Internet Protocols allow
only LDH (letter, digit, hyphen) domain labels as described in
[RFC1123], [RFC3696], and [RFC4343]. The letters are ASCII letters;
certain LDH-labels are also known as A-labels in the context of IDN
(Internationalization of Domain Names) and [IDNAbis].
The key words "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", and "SHOULD" in this memo are to
be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples
There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for
creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or
future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private
testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS
related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.
For example, without guidance, a site might set up some local
additional unused top level domains for testing of its local DNS code
and configuration. Later, these TLDs might come into actual use on
the global Internet. As a result, local attempts to reference the
real data in these zones could be thwarted by the local test
versions. Or test or example code might be written that accesses a
TLD that is in use with the thought that the test code would only be
run in a restricted testbed net or the example never actually run.
Later, the test code could escape from the testbed or the example be
actually coded and run on the Internet. Depending on the nature of
the test or example, it might be best for it to be referencing a TLD
permanently reserved for such purposes.
To safely satisfy these needs, five domain names are reserved as
listed and described below. See also Section 4.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
2.1. ".example", ".tld"
".example", ".tld", and the example TLDs in Section 4 are RECOMMENDED
for use in documentation or as examples.
2.2. ".invalid"
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names
that are sure to be invalid, and for which it is obvious at a glance
that they are invalid.
Applications MAY treat ".invalid" as what the name says. For this
technical reason reserving internationalized ".invalid" TLDs would be
unwise.
2.3. ".localhost"
The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
host DNS implementations as having an address record pointing to the
loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use
would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
See [RFC1122] for IPv4 and [RFC4291] for IPv6 loop back addresses.
2.4. ".test"
".test" and the new test TLDs in Section 4 are RECOMMENDED for use in
testing of current or new DNS related code. Applications SHOULD
treat these test TLDs like any other TLD; a special handling could
defeat the purpose of a test.
3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also reserves the
three second level domain names ".example.com", ".example.net", and
".example.org", which can be used in examples as explained in
Section 2.1.
When TLDs offer further second level domains for examples, the TLD
administrators are encouraged to publish the relevant policies in
their TLD as an informational RFC.
The second level domain names "nic", "whois", and "www" are often
reserved or used for administrative purposes of the TLD, e.g.,
"whois.example" for the fully qualified domain name of a host with a
whois server. As with second level domains for examples this can be
an issue in the case of a TLD redelegation.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
Please note that there are no globally reserved LDH DNS labels below
the top level; see [RFC4367].
4. Internationalization Considerations
In 2007 IANA created eleven IDN test TLDs together with corresponding
IDN example labels. The A-labels, corresponding languages, and IDN
U-labels are listed below; see [RFC3490] or its [IDNAbis] successor
for details about IDN. Applications SHOULD treat the IDN test TLDs
as explained in Section 2.4.
TLD A-label Language Test U-label (hex. code points)
".xn--0zwm56d" Chinese (simplified) 6d4b 8bd5
".xn--11b5bs3a9aj6g" Hindi 92a 930 940 915 94d 937 93e
".xn--80akhbyknj4f" Russian 438 441 43f 44b 442 430 43d 438 435
".xn--9t4b11yi5a" Korean d14c c2a4 d2b8
".xn--deba0ad" Yiddish 5d8 5e2 5e1 5d8
".xn--g6w251d" Chinese (traditional) 6e2c 8a66
".xn--hgbk6aj7f53bba" Persian 622 632 645 627 6cc 634 6cc
".xn--hlcj6aya9esc7a" Tamil baa bb0 bbf b9f bcd b9a bc8
".xn--jxalpdlp" Greek 3b4 3bf 3ba 3b9 3bc 3ae
".xn--kgbechtv" Arabic 625 62e 62a 628 627 631
".xn--zckzah" Japanese 30c6 30b9 30c8
The corresponding IDN example labels shown below are reserved as TLDs
for examples; compare Section 2.1. Additional IDN example TLDs,
notably the final list of IDN example labels after the IDN test, can
be reserved later as specified in Section 5.
TLD A-label Language Example U-label (hex. code points)
".xn--9n2bp8q" Korean c2e4 b840
".xn--e1afmkfd" Russian 43f 440 438 43c 435 440
".xn--fdbk5d8ap9b8a8d" Yiddish 5d1 5f2 5b7 5e9 5e4 5bc 5d9 5dc
".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (simplified) 4f8b 5b50
".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (traditional) 4f8b 5b50
".xn--hxajbheg2az3al" Greek 3c0 3b1 3c1 3ac 3b4 3b5 3b9 3b3 3bc 3b1
".xn--mgbh0fb" Arabic 645 62b 627 644
".xn--mgbh0fb" Persian 645 62b 627 644
".xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a" Hindi 909 926 93e 939 930 923
".xn--r8jz45g" Japanese 4f8b 3048
".xn--zkc6cc5bi7f6e" Tamil b89 ba4 bbe bb0 ba3 bae bcd
5. IANA Considerations
IANA reserves the TLDs ".example", ".invalid", ".localhost", ".test",
".tld", eleven IDN test TLDs, and nine IDN example TLDs as noted
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
above. IANA reserves the second level domains ".example.com",
".example.net", and ".example.org".
IANA creates a registry of reserved TLDs; this can be done alongside
existing IANA TLD registries at the discretion of IANA. The registry
should contain references to the relevant specifications, for the 25
reserved TLDs specified here references to this memo will do.
Additional reserved TLDs require IETF review as defined in [RFC5226]
section 4.1 in conjunction with clause 4.3 in [RFC2860].
The *technical* purpose of a reserved TLD has to be stated in its
specification.
Proposals to reserve TLD labels not permitted for ordinary TLDs, as
specified in [RFC1123] among others, e.g., labels not starting with a
letter, or not following known LDH- and [IDNAbis] rules, are not
expected to survive an IETF review without compelling reasons.
6. Security Considerations
Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or
future top level domain name in experimentation or testing, as an
example in documentation, to indicate invalid names, or as a synonym
for the loop back address. Test and experimental software can escape
and end up being run against the global operational DNS. Even
examples used "only" in documentation can end up being coded and
released or cause conflicts due to later real use and the possible
acquisition of intellectual property rights in such "example" names.
The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes
minimizes such confusion and conflict.
[RFC4367] discusses various false assumptions based on domain labels,
however this doesn't affect the reserved TLDs in this memo.
Readers need to be aware that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs in
Section 5 won't list all reserved TLDs for specific applications and
protocols. The registry can only list reserved TLDs if somebody
bothered to propose it, typically in an Internet-Draft, and the
proposal was accepted in an IETF review.
7. Acknowledgments
This memo contains major parts of [RFC2606] written by Donald E.
Eastlake and Aliza R. Panitz.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
Thanks to Alfred Hoenes, Bill McQuillan, Brian Carpenter,
Dave Cridland, David Conrad, Debbie Garside, Doug Otis, Joe Abley,
John Klensin, John Levine, Lyman Chapin, Marcel Parodi, Mark Andrews,
Marshall Eubanks, Michael Dillon, Ole Jacobsen, Paul Hoffman,
Peter Saint-Andre, Philip Guenther, Philip Hallam-Baker, SM,
Spencer Dawkins, Steve Crocker, Sumit Pandya, Thomas Narten,
Tina Dam, Tony Finch, and Tony Hansen for their feedback,
contributions, or encouragement.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[RFC2965] Kristol, D. and L. Montulli, "HTTP State Management
Mechanism", RFC 2965, October 2000.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3696] Klensin, J., "Application Techniques for Checking and
Transformation of Names", RFC 3696, February 2004.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
May 2005.
[RFC4085] Plonka, D., "Embedding Globally-Routable Internet
Addresses Considered Harmful", BCP 105, RFC 4085,
June 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4343] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity
Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
[RFC4367] Rosenberg, J. and IAB, "What's in a Name: False
Assumptions about DNS Names", RFC 4367, February 2006.
[I-D.iana-rfc3330bis]
Cotton, M., "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
draft-iana-rfc3330bis-03 (work in progress), June 2008.
[IDNAbis] IETF, "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(Revised)", April 2008,
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis>.
Appendix A. Educational Info
This informative appendix tries to answer three frequently asked
questions:
1. As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.edu"; TLD ".edu"
has no contract with ICANN; its administration is based on a five
years contract with the US DoC renewed in 2006; see
<http://net.educause.edu/edudomain/policy.asp>. Under amendment
6 of their current policy generic names cannot be registered.
This is not exactly the same situation as for say ".example.org",
where IANA is the registrant *and* registrar.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
2. As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.info"; TLD ".info"
was created by ICANN in 2001. The ".info" registry agreement
lists reserved DNS labels including "example"; see
<http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/> appendix 6 (2006)
and K (2001), respectively. This is not exactly the same
situation as for say ".example.org", where IANA is the registrant
*and* registrar.
3. Ignoring [RFC2965] the TLD ".local" issue was discussed in a
bunch of Internet-Drafts related to AS112, zeroconf, and
[RFC3927]. Presumably TLD ".local" should be registered as
reserved for technical reasons, but deserves its own document
with the fine print.
Appendix B. Document History
Changes in version 12:
o Version 12 adjusts white space introduced in version 10 that
should have been removed for version 11. Version 11 attracted no
further feedback.
o An informal last call on the IDNAbis list for version 10 resulted
in one change for version 11 as noted below. Unsurprisingly the
IDNAbis WG did not adopt this draft as work item. The WG also did
not tackle the issue of IDNA <toplabel>s so far, and this memo is
not the place to update [RFC1123] section 2.1.
Changes in version 11:
o Added nine IDN example labels corresponding to the IDN test labels
as reserved TLDs after long discussions with two contributors
confirming the stability and desirability of this approach.
o Noted that the list of IDN example TLDs might be extended, and a
final list can be reserved as specified here after the conclusion
of the IDN test.
Changes in version 10:
o Noted that only certain LDH-labels are or might be A-labels based
on feedback. The details are or will be specified in [IDNAbis].
o Moved [RFC2860] back to informative. Folks *apparently* disagree
what it should be, more feedback needed to justify a downref.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
o Added [RFC3696] again, its description of a <toplabel> covers the
eleven IDN test TLDs.
Changes in version 09:
o Fixed [RFC2860] link, clause 4.3 is a section of the MoU, not a
section of the RFC containing this MoU.
o Added ".tld" as reserved TLD for examples following a proposal by
Bill McQuillan supported by some others.
o Arguably ".bad" ideas ".bar", ".bat", ".baz", ".foo", and ".lit"
not yet added for different reasons, they would need stronger
support.
Changes in version 08:
o Moved [RFC2860] to normative, inspired by feedback and the
precedence in another BCP. Added the relevant sections in
[RFC2860] and [RFC5226] to Section 5.
o Added a long blurb that the purpose of reserved TLDs has to be
noted in their specifications, and that reserving TLDs not
permitted as ordinary TLDs need very good reasons to survive the
required IETF review.
o [IDNAbis] hopefully fixes the <toplabel> problem in [RFC1123].
This memo isn't the place to do this, as the issue is not limited
to reserved TLDs, tests, and examples.
Changes in version 07:
o Kept "nic", "whois", and "www" as known examples why there are no
globally reserved LDH labels for whatever purpose below the top
level.
o Proposals to add ".internal", ".local", ".localdomain", and
".uucp" not adopted. This memo covers known test and example
TLDs, as well as two other TLDs and three example SLDs inherited
from [RFC2606]. Reserved TLDs for other purposes deserve separate
documents.
o Added a note that internationalizations of ".invalid" are a non-
starter, as this TLD is expected to be hardwired in some
applications. For ".localhost" that should be obvious.
o Review requests sent at different times to the APPS, general,
[IDNAbis], INT, and OPS mailing lists.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
Changes in version 06:
o Explanations of the terms LDH, A-label, and IDN added in
Section 1. Just in case added a reference to [RFC4343].
o Downgraded [RFC3696] to [RFC1123]; for some months the best
documentation of a <toplabel> was available in an erratum.
Changes in version 05:
o Donald offered to co-author this memo.
o Clarified that there are now additional TLDs recommended for
tests, not only the original ".test" in Section 2.4.
Changes in version 04:
o In the "Public Suffix List" debate SM quoted [RFC4085], added to
Section 1.
o Replaced "A record" by "address record" with references to
[RFC1122] and [RFC4291] in Section 2.3.
o Added IDN test U-labels (in a crude hex. format due to RFC layout
limitations) with the help of <http://josefsson.org/idn.php/> and
<http://www.imc.org/idna/>.
Changes in version 03:
o Swapped IANA and security considerations based on feedback, since
version 01 the order anyway did not more follow <http://
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08#section-4>.
o Dave Cridland proposed another [RFC4367] caveat, there are no
globally reserved LDH labels below the top level. LDH excludes
special cases such as the empty label reserved for the root, and
leaf labels starting with an underscore.
o The informative Appendix A hopefully answers frequently asked
questions about ".example.edu", ".example.info", and ".local".
Changes in version 02:
o Added the related [RFC3849] and [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis] references.
Added an [RFC4367] reference to the security considerations, as
this explains one of many issues with any "well-known" label below
the top level.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
o Improved the IANA Considerations Section 5 based on feedback. The
registry of reserved TLDs needs references to the relevant
specifications.
o Added a caveat that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs cannot list
all obscure ideas of specific applications and protocols; somebody
has to trigger an IETF review for new registrations.
Changes in version 01:
o Various editorial issues found by Tony Hansen fixed.
o Added an [IDNAbis] reference. The authors believe that the IETF
is not entitled to decree that ".example.edu" belongs to the set
of three example-SLDs reserved by IANA.
Changes in version 00:
o John Klensin suggested clarifying the guidelines for examples in
[RFC2606], referenced by <http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html>.
Documenting the eleven new IDN test TLDs was anyway desirable.
Authors' Addresses
Frank Ellermann
xyzzy
Hamburg, Germany
Email: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com
URI: http://purl.net/xyzzy/
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Eastlake Enterprises
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Phone: +1-508-634-2066
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Reserved Top Level DNS Names August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
This document was produced using xml2rfc v1.33 (of
http://xml.resource.org/) from a source in RFC-2629 XML format.
Ellermann & Eastlake Expires February 19, 2009 [Page 13]
